lolGlobalWarming?

[Tristam]

Because I don't understand the science behind climate change, I'm assuming noone else does.

fixed it for ya.

[Suited Aces]

We should be worried about Global Cooling instead, I hear that is approaching quickly.

It's snowing in Texas, we're already screwed. Buy guns and ammo. The end is near.

[Mizango]

Seriously, you guys stress too much, clearly God has a plan. To question said plan is a slap in his face, relax everyone.

It's snowing in Texas, we're already screwed. Buy guns and ammo. The end is near.

This man is wise. Gather the flock, our Shepard approaches.

[thatwasnifty]

Seriously, you guys stress too much, clearly God has a plan.

It's just God huggin' us close, right?

[Dimmauk]

Who cares about Global Warming/Cooling.

Zombie Santa and his flesh-eating Reindeer are coming!!

[Mizango]

Who cares about Global Warming/Cooling.

Zombie Santa and his flesh-eating Reindeer are coming!!

OH SHI!!!

[guartz]

The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Matthew 24:29-34

[Posterboy]

We're doomed!

[Tristam]

"Global Warming" is indeed occurring. Temperatures are increasing, that's pretty much an established fact. The argument is over the cause. "Environmentalists" like Al Gore are spewing bulsh with little or no actual respectable scientific backing as the new gospel, and claiming that "Global Warming" is the new apocalypse.

Possible (root) causes of global climate change:

1. Continental Drift

2. Tilt of earth on its axis

3. Solar activity

4. Orbital Wobble

5. ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION

Four of the above have been ruled out as the primary cause for climate change over the past 100 years, I'll let you guess which ones they are.

Come on people, this is at it's essence a really easy first principles argument. You don't need to know atmospheric physics to understand what's happening and what variables are in play. You especially don't need to listen to suspicious sites that intentionally misrepresent data.

[Dimmauk]

Xenu Is Coming!

Celebrity news: Tom Cruise Building Bunker to Protect Against Alien Attack.

Hollywood star Tom Cruise is planning to build a bunker at his Colorado home to protect his family in the event of an intergalactic alien attack, according to new reports.

The Mission Impossible actor, who is a dedicated follower of Scientology, is reportedly fearful that deposed galactic ruler 'Xenu' is plotting an evil revenge attack on Earth.

According to American magazine Star, a source said: "Tom is planning to build a US$10 million bunker under his Telluride estate."

[Mizango]

And people will call Tom Cruise looney. Clearly all he is doing is building a church.

[RandyMarsh]

Possible (root) causes of global climate change:

1. Continental Drift

2. Tilt of earth on its axis

3. Solar activity

4. Orbital Wobble

5. ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION

Four of the above have been ruled out as the primary cause for climate change over the past 100 years, I'll let you guess which ones they are.

Come on people, this is at it's essence a really easy first principles argument. You don't need to know atmospheric physics to understand what's happening and what variables are in play. You especially don't need to listen to suspicious sites that intentionally misrepresent data.

So what is it that you think you know that the other brilliant scientific minds who have dealt with this issue and still disagree with it don't know? That's mostly what made it so interesting to me, when you have people as involved and smart as them casting dissent upon such ideas, what judgment could the average person make that could possibly be any more well informed?

[Tristam]

So what is it that you think you know that the other brilliant scientific minds who have dealt with this issue and still disagree with it don't know? That's mostly what made it so interesting to me, when you have people as involved and smart as them casting dissent upon such ideas, what judgment could the average person make that could possibly be any more well informed?

Simple, this is alot like the list of scientists that doubt "darwinism." In some cases it's someone speaking out of their area of expertise. In some cases it's someone who just hasn't kept up with the literature. And in some cases it's someone who is being intentionally dishonest. But I'd be willing to bet my pants that in many cases these "quotes" are taken entirely out of context.

For instance:

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

This is just plain factually wrong, glaringly so. Everyone admits the earth is warming and the hardiest denialists are moving on to attacking humans as the cause.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Factually wrong. Water and CO2 have different absorption spectra and different effects on climate. Furthermore humans have had very little effect on the atmospheric H2O content of the atmosphere. While it's true that water is primarily responsible for the earth's temperature as a result of the greenhouse effect, this effect has been static for some time and only recently has it begun changing. This quote is doubly dubious as it accepts the principles behind greenhouse warming but not the differential consequences of CO2 and H2O? Bullshit.


Apart from an appeal to authority, all they have is that paper which they mistakenly equate with "50% of warming is due to the sun", which the paper itself expresses is likely not the case.

[Posterboy]

Isn't this why they changed it from "Global Warming" to the more accurate phrase "Climate Change" ?

[Stiker]

On topic:

Just like pretty much everything, you are going to find a fair share of people that will be skeptic of nearly any scientific research.

Off topic:

The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Matthew 24:29-34

If you are going to quote and cite, quote the whole thing (nit-picking mostly I know):

29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c] 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Footnote for generation says "or race" as an alternate interpretation.

Interestingly, Matthew 24:36 completely contradicts the previous quote (I'm actually more surprised you didn't point this out):

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.

Footnote there cites that some "manuscripts" don't include "nor the Son".

References/text from: BibleGateway.com - Passage�Lookup: Matthew 24;

Take this info however you wish. Honestly not trying to put my opinion on it (if you really want it PM me), but tossing out all the info/references. The Bible has a bunch of differing translations and contradictions and can be seen in just a few verses and you have even more people debating on the varies meanings of it and which translation is the "right" one.

[Suited Aces]

5. ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION

Four of the above have been ruled out as the primary cause for climate change over the past 100 years, I'll let you guess which ones they are.

Come on people, this is at it's essence a really easy first principles argument. You don't need to know atmospheric physics to understand what's happening and what variables are in play. You especially don't need to listen to suspicious sites that intentionally misrepresent data.

I blame flatulent cows and volcanoes.

[Stiker]

I blame flatulent cows and volcanoes.

But which one is the bigger problem?

[SephYuyX]

Robots

[zoobernut]

Robots

Can't we just have them all vent in the same direction at the same time?

[Tubbers]

Nitpicking:

alot

Ugggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

Factually wrong. Water and CO2 have different absorption spectra and different effects on climate. Furthermore humans have had very little effect on the atmospheric H2O content of the atmosphere. While it's true that water is primarily responsible for the earth's temperature as a result of the greenhouse effect, this effect has been static for some time and only recently has it begun changing. This quote is doubly dubious as it accepts the principles behind greenhouse warming but not the differential consequences of CO2 and H2O? Bullshit.

More nitpicking:
Taking a quote of a person who believes A for reasons that are obviously illogical does not refute A, just the obviously illogical reasons. To claim that A is false simply because there are crazies who believe it is ad hominem. If you want to contribute any serious discourse take the arguments for and against that are considered good and prove why they do or do not hold up.
[/nitpicking]

While I do believe that tripling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have noticeable and probably significant results, everything you just wrote in opposition the stated claim does exactly nothing to disprove it. If anything it supports it. You might have wanted to include the relative absorption rate or greenhouse units caused by each, and how increased CO2 has been shown in some cases to lead to an increase in H2O / humidity which exacerbates the greenhouse effect.

Supposing we do know exactly what causes the increase in temperature, and supposing we still do it anyways and don't give a fuck, what exactly will happen? What is the oncoming apocalypse we shall suffer as a result? How many people will die? Collectively, humans have the ability to put the Earth into another ice age with minimal effort, something like $5-$10 billion could do it. Or we have the ability to kill off a good 90% of the human population within a week. Objectively, I'm more afraid of falling down the stairs than I am of facing the repercussions of Global Warming caused by humans.

Of the multitude of problems humans face, Global Warming is neither the most immediate, nor the most deadly, nor the most "harmful". Does it deserve attention? Yes. Does it deserve as much attention as it is getting? Fuck no.